A Special for J
J commented on my last post about Rush Limbaugh's decidedly casual and dated sartorial choices when he appeared yesterday on the Fox Sunday morning news show.
J thought I should give equal time and go after Hillary and Pelosi for their appearances which I did in a comment. He also thought my approach to Limbaugh should be more substantive.
OK, here it is, admittedly cherry picking, but substantive nonetheless.
Limbaugh asserted that the 3.5% increase in GDP third quarter growth was the sole result of "cash for clunkers" and the first time home buyer tax credit, claiming there's no private sector growth. No analysis, no facts, just bald assertion.
From the Bureau of Economic Analysis (U.S. Department of Commerce)
"The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased."
Rush missed a few factors it seems. And, last I knew exports, imports and private inventory investment are not government spending vehicles.
Rush on health care:
"This is not about insuring the uninsured. This is not about health care. This is about stealing one-sixth of the U.S. private sector and putting it under the control of federal government. And when they get this health care bill, if they do, that's the easiest, fastest way for them to be able to regulate every aspect of human behavior, because it will all have some related cost to health care -- what you drive, what you eat, where you live, what you do. And there'll be penalties for violating regulations. It's going to be the biggest snatch of freedom and liberty that has yet occurred in this country."
Is it necessary to point out Rush is engaging in some minor overstatement? Perhaps as stupid as the Democrat a couple of weeks ago saying the Republican health care plan was to get people to die faster. And you have to admit, he was more pithy than Rush.
And this rigorous analysis of how to fix health care:
"Well, I've run the numbers, and the real number of uninsured that want insurance is 12 million. Take some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. Take some of it. For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4 -- if that's the objective, do it now."
That want health insurance? Raise your hands if you don't want health insurance. Don't be shy.
From something called the National Coalition on Health:
"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 47 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2008, their latest data available."
According to Rush, who's run the numbers, there are 35 million uninsured Americans who don't want to have health insurance. There are more idiots running around than I thought, Rush included.
Finally, Rush thinks Sara Palin is ready to be the President:
"See, I am a -- one thing I do not do is follow conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom of Sarah Palin is she's not smart enough, she needs to bone up on the issues, she's a little unsophisticated, she -- Alaska, where's that? -- doesn't have the pedigree. I've seen -- she's the only thing that provided any kind of a spark for the Republican Party. This is not an endorsement, but I do have profound respect for Sarah Palin. There are not very many politicians who have been through what she's through -- been put through and still able to smile and be ebullient and upbeat. I mean, this woman, I think, is pretty tough."
So, let's parse that non-endorsement. He doesn't rebut the people that think she's less than intelligent, non-conversant with the issues and unsophisticated. She's a firecracker and tough. She'll make those Iraqis and Iranians and North Koreans and Taliban people shake in their boots. Does that shed any light for you on the issue of whether his opinion that Obama is "immature, inexperienced, in over his head" is valid? Obama - doesn't do things the way I would - bad. Palin - shoots from the hip, decidedly unread, but blathers like me - she's my gal!
Substance, thy name is Rush.
9 comments:
Anyone who would defend Rush needs our sympathy. Somewhere they lost the ability to do critical thinking - a disability, for sure.
Rush makes $15-20 million each year and works for people who think that's petty cash. This bunch loves their money and wants to keep all of it. Consequently, their game plan is to convince the average "Joe" and "Susie" to believe that what's good for Rush and Rupert Murdock is good for them. It's working, as evidenced by "J".
Others with a bit more background, like me, a republican ex-Army officer with an MBA and CPA, know for certain that Rush is full of crap. But he is rich, thanks to Joe and Susie, and "J". That, my friends, is Rush's primary objective, and I commend him for achieving it, albeit on the backs of all average citizens.
Maybe it's the anger expressed against immigrants and other minorities, and rich celebrities, that resonates with "J". Limbaugh, Beck, Savage, and their ilk start with anger and build their perverse agenda on top of it.
But, "J", if Rush makes you feel good, that's worth something. Just don't tell me you're a Christian. That would really break my heart.
Ah, Lifehiker, J's a good guy. Quite conservative and likes to push buttons; but, he doesn't buy all Rush has to push (you don't do you J?).
An aside, also in the Sunday interview: Rush's new contract is for 8 years and tops out at $400 mill depending on how the profits are.
Dave - Thanks for the special blog and the good word. I don't buy all of what anybody says.
Not sure I understand how Rush's success is "on the backs of all average citizens". That is not a very Republican kind of statement. Sounds more like a Dem "zero sum game" view that anyone's success is at the expense of others.
I confess -you probably are already aware of this though -that there are many, MANY things I don't understand -with respect to economics, the economy, legal stuff and other and varied things. So, though I don't comprehend your writings about the GNP and imports/exports, et al, as I read on I was getting worried whether I would figure out what you were going for with this post -which was enticing to me because I was figuring it was a blast on old Rush. Finally, I got that part and also, the bits about Palin too! LOL
And yes indeed -I so agree with your closing line about Rush and that thing called "substance!"
And -just thinking too (a dangerous thing for me to do (especially when I have a beer in my hand)but if the govt. wants to punish, contain, regulate (choose your own word there) the big wigs with the hummungous salaries per year -as in the banking and Wall Street -why, since "rumor" has it that the administration would like to shut down Fox News, don't they do a takeover there and limit the salaries of those who claim journalistic ideals and privileges but yet, continue to pump lies and other propaganda upon that part of society that buys into their line of crapola? No -I'm not seriously thinking of this as a good idea -just a dream of mine that I'd like to see Fox at least toned down a bit in the fabrication department and trimming the wages of those who abuse that part to the max -just icing on the cake to me! Ok -another comment book and I apologize for that but talk about Rush does bring out what isn't exactly the best in my mind I guess.
Dave: Nicely done.
Rachel Maddow, Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews. enough said
Jeni - if goverment controlled media is what you are looking for I can suggest a few countries you would probably feel more comfortable in.
A postscript: I wouldn't have known about Rush's rant had he done it on his radio show. Only on the rare occasion do I listen to anything on any of the cable networks, be they Fox, CNN or MSNBC. I watched the piece steaming from, I think, Google News and then only because at the time was bored.
That presages this, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Scarborough and the people J mentioned can say whatever they want to. On a street corner, on their airwave podiums. They have that right. That doesn't mean I'm going to listen or watch them.
That said, I do not want anyone, much less the government, in anyway limiting their speech, sorry Jeni.
One of the few things I still like about the ACLU (I was a member years ago) is that it will defend the indefensible.
The antidote to stupid speech is intelligent speech. Damn those founding fathers had it going!
My comment about Rush "getting rich on the backs of average citizens" simply means this:
Rush pushes the "anti-tax" agenda constantly, and at one point was vociferous about the estate tax which he called the "death tax". Granted, wealthy people pay the lion's share of taxes, but U.S. rates are much lower than elsewhere and lower than U.S. rates were for many years. Why would average citizens back him on this issue?
Rush has also been a flag-waver for deregulation, especially with respect to investments. Everyone knows where that has got us - poorer, and angry at the Wall Street creeps who made us that way.
It's a free country, so if Rush can convince "Joe" and "Susie" to agree with him, more power to him. For a huckster like Rush, suckers abound.
Interesting people have so much to say about someone they don't listen to. Why oh why do you grant him so much power?
I'm afraid that I will never agree that advocating lower taxes regardless of the nature (death, cap gains, income, sales, healthcare surcharge, etc etc etc) are a bad thing that someone should be vilified for supporting.
Messers Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have way more to do with the mortgage/credit market debacle that Rush did. Are we all happy now that it has been proven that people that cannot afford to buy a house cannot afford to buy a house? (thank you libs for that one)
Post a Comment